Man City FFP decision this month.

[Bailo]

2 minutes ago, Stanley Leisure said:

Good summary of the CAS findings by the ever-brilliant David Conn. 

Whole thing stinks.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/29/uk-food-tsar-obesity-drive-percy-pigs-henry-dimbleby-co-founder-of-leon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

They bunged UEFA a s*** ton of Percy Pigs?! Will this corruption never end?

[Gethin]

12 minutes ago, Bailo said:

They bunged UEFA a s*** ton of Percy Pigs?! Will this corruption never end?

Beat me to it. Think he means this  

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/verdict-that-kept-manchester-city-in-europe-delivers-some-glancing-blows-cas-judgment 

[muleskinner]

16 minutes ago, Stanley Leisure said:

Good summary of the CAS findings by the ever-brilliant David Conn. 

Whole thing stinks.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/29/uk-food-tsar-obesity-drive-percy-pigs-henry-dimbleby-co-founder-of-leon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

They seem to think the ruling shows how innocent they are 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by muleskinner

[kop205]

22 minutes ago, Stanley Leisure said:

Good summary of the CAS findings by the ever-brilliant David Conn. 

Whole thing stinks.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/29/uk-food-tsar-obesity-drive-percy-pigs-henry-dimbleby-co-founder-of-leon?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Might want to check the link mate

[Stanley Leisure]

 

20 minutes ago, kop205 said:

Might want to check the link mate

Haha, ffs - was just doing my morning digest.

 

40 minutes ago, Bailo said:

They bunged UEFA a s*** ton of Percy Pigs?! Will this corruption never end?

Now I understand this.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Stanley Leisure

[Bailo]

They absolutely 100% did cheat didn't they? And, as they admitted themselves, just spent even more money to try and break the system that prosecuted them.

Man City*

[Stanley Leisure]

6 minutes ago, Bailo said:

They absolutely 100% did cheat didn't they? And, as they admitted themselves, just spent even more money to try and break the system that prosecuted them.

Man City*

Yep. 

[Ed the Wool]

I can't see the other big clubs being too happy with Uefa over this. It's an absolute clusterf***. 

Which raises the question, what if Uefa say 'f*** you, we are banning you for 2 years anyway.' What recourse do City have? Make Uefa let them play? They can say, it's out competition, our rules, so f*** off. 

I can't see any of the top clubs in Europe rushing to their defence. 

If UEFA's only fear is the legal costs, they're more s***house than I thought. 

 

[Bailo]

UEFA should just say "Like Man City's refusal to recognise the FFP process, we don't recognise CAS' authority over our own competition" 

[Ed the Wool]

18 minutes ago, Bailo said:

UEFA should just say "Like Man City's refusal to recognise the FFP process, we don't recognise CAS' authority over our own competition" 

I wonder if this is what might come next. It'll take pressure from the rest of the clubs. I think I heard/read that City's only recourse then is to the Swiss courts, which would no doubt be very expensive. 

If Uefa roll over on this I think they're done. It might take a slow bleed and a few seasons. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Ed the Wool

[Stevie H]

53 minutes ago, Bailo said:

They absolutely 100% did cheat didn't they? And, as they admitted themselves, just spent even more money to try and break the system that prosecuted them.

Man City*

"We broke the rules, just not when you said we broke the rules" is total exoneration now apparently.

They're awful and like so many in positions of wealth and power today have drummed up a bullsh*t persecution complex that their supporters have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

[Hassony]

4 minutes ago, Stevie H said:

"We broke the rules, just not when you said we broke the rules" is total exoneration now apparently.

They're awful and like so many in positions of wealth and power today have drummed up a bullsh*t persecution complex that their supporters have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

And Guardiola the clown think they deserve an apology 

 

[Ombudsam]

42 minutes ago, Bailo said:

UEFA should just say "Like Man City's refusal to recognise the FFP process, we don't recognise CAS' authority over our own competition" 

I obviously don’t like City but you really don’t want to set a precedent if there being no one to appeal to beyond them. It could easily come for any club one day and cost them in a really unfair fashion.

15 minutes ago, Stevie H said:

"We broke the rules, just not when you said we broke the rules" is total exoneration now apparently.

They're awful and like so many in positions of wealth and power today have drummed up a bullsh*t persecution complex that their supporters have swallowed hook, line and sinker.

 

11 minutes ago, Hassony said:

And Guardiola the clown think they deserve an apology 

 

If what they are after is genuine social acceptance and they are going to let that eat at them then it’s easily withheld on justifiable grounds and they’ll make themselves crazy.
 

They’re a very good football team and one of the best in the world. They’ll be around a good while. They can console themselves with that and the rest of us can deal with the reality of building the best teams we can.

[Stevie H]

15 minutes ago, Hassony said:

And Guardiola the clown think they deserve an apology 

 

Guardiola knows all about it, up to his neck in it and as complicit as anyone. He's their f***ing PR front man in this instance.

[Beardsley]

Could this lead to the threat of the biggest clubs finally establishing the super league and dropping CL altogether?

[pipnasty]

Weren't those in the know on Blue Moon   claiming that City were now going to start their own competition and only clubs that had been nice to them were going to be allowed to enter - like Doncaster, Falkirk and some second division German team? And it was going to be the biggest and bestest tournament ever and that the prize money was going to be £100 billion? 

[kop205]

6 minutes ago, Beardsley said:

Could this lead to the threat of the biggest clubs finally establishing the super league and dropping CL altogether?

It is fraught with difficutly in reality.

City, PSG, and probably a few others who would then be hoovered up by similar ownership models would probably set up their own league as well and pay wages that would blow everyone else out of the water and so overtime attract the best players.

More fun to just t*** City again anyway.

[Jarg Armani]

City are just made up that they are too big to be punished now. They aren’t pretending not to have broke the rules. 

[kop205]

19 minutes ago, Jarg Armani said:

City are just made up that they are too big to be punished now. They aren’t pretending not to have broke the rules. 

The fans aren't pretending.

Guardiola is, with his usual dollops of weirdo pseudo-mystic Uri Geller-lite intensity.

 

[Jarg Armani]

54 minutes ago, kop205 said:

The fans aren't pretending.

Guardiola is, with his usual dollops of weirdo pseudo-mystic Uri Geller-lite intensity.

 

Yeah I meant the fans really

[Buttles]

Der Spiegel saying they have evidence City lied to the CAS...

Hope there is something to this.

[muleskinner]

36 minutes ago, Buttles said:

Der Spiegel saying they have evidence City lied to the CAS...

Hope there is something to this.

https://www.spiegel.de/sport/cas-urteil-zu-manchester-city-interne-mails-stellen-zeugenaussagen-in-frage-a-9ce67020-5f9e-4c3b-b307-cc855f04c0c7-amp

[RaoulD]

4 hours ago, Buttles said:

Der Spiegel saying they have evidence City lied to the CAS...

Hope there is something to this.

I was surprised that City were allowed the opportunity to give evidence as the UEFA statutes seem to prohibit this particularly when the same statutes are used to find a time bar.

I really struggle to understand the reasoning having read the judgment. There seem to me to be three major issues that go against all legal logic.

1.  CAS found that there was a prima facie case to answer on the basis of the emails and that City chose not to cooperate with the investigation which was their opportunity to rebut that prima facie case. The only conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that on the available evidence City were guilty as charged yet CAS seemed to have then determined that the prima facie case was not good enough to support the original charge i.e. there was not enough evidence for a prima facie case.

2. The interpretation of the time bar does not seem to have considered the interpretation on the limitation clause according to Swiss Law which given that both UEFA and CAS are governed by Swiss Law is surprising in the extreme. There is no consideration of the Civil Code of Obligations and in particular the provision in the code that suspends time. I cannot see how UEFA could possibly have known about the potential hidden equity funding until the emails came out in 2018 so it seems to me that the 5 year limitation would only start to run when UEFA were in a position to prosecute.

3. The major consequence of City's failure to cooperate with the investigation was that UEFA could not establish whether City had broken the rules as the evidence was within City's control. By analogy to other sports related regimes, a failure to cooperate is treated as equivalent to committing the offence itself and this is often the case in other areas of law. For example, if you refuse to give a sample when suspected of drink driving you are punished as if you had committed the offence. Why should City not be punished in the same way merely because as a result of their non-cooperation, UEFA could not prove they had committed the offence that justified a ban. It is the same in the anti-doping regime. Given the vast amount of jurisprudence upholding the principle that a failure to cooperate with investigators is as bad as the offence itself, City should have been banned even if they could subsequently show they did not break the rules because they did not take the opportunity to produce irrefutable evidence when they had a case against them to answer.

 

[Hassony]

12 minutes ago, RaoulD said:

I was surprised that City were allowed the opportunity to give evidence as the UEFA statutes seem to prohibit this particularly when the same statutes are used to find a time bar.

I really struggle to understand the reasoning having read the judgment. There seem to me to be three major issues that go against all legal logic.

1.  CAS found that there was a prima facie case to answer on the basis of the emails and that City chose not to cooperate with the investigation which was their opportunity to rebut that prima facie case. The only conclusion that can therefore be drawn is that on the available evidence City were guilty as charged yet CAS seemed to have then determined that the prima facie case was not good enough to support the original charge i.e. there was not enough evidence for a prima facie case.

2. The interpretation of the time bar does not seem to have considered the interpretation on the limitation clause according to Swiss Law which given that both UEFA and CAS are governed by Swiss Law is surprising in the extreme. There is no consideration of the Civil Code of Obligations and in particular the provision in the code that suspends time. I cannot see how UEFA could possibly have known about the potential hidden equity funding until the emails came out in 2018 so it seems to me that the 5 year limitation would only start to run when UEFA were in a position to prosecute.

3. The major consequence of City's failure to cooperate with the investigation was that UEFA could not establish whether City had broken the rules as the evidence was within City's control. By analogy to other sports related regimes, a failure to cooperate is treated as equivalent to committing the offence itself and this is often the case in other areas of law. For example, if you refuse to give a sample when suspected of drink driving you are punished as if you had committed the offence. Why should City not be punished in the same way merely because as a result of their non-cooperation, UEFA could not prove they had committed the offence that justified a ban. It is the same in the anti-doping regime. Given the vast amount of jurisprudence upholding the principle that a failure to cooperate with investigators is as bad as the offence itself, City should have been banned even if they could subsequently show they did not break the rules because they did not take the opportunity to produce irrefutable evidence when they had a case against them to answer.

 

Do you think this is definitely over now or are there options for UEFA to take it further?

[RaoulD]

6 hours ago, Hassony said:

Do you think this is definitely over now or are there options for UEFA to take it further?

Probably over so far as these events are concerned since it gives UEFA a get out without losing too much credibility with their other members. They will look to improve the FFP rules to close the loopholes exploited by City rather than try pursue the more difficult route of trying to overturn the award in the Swiss courts which, as it is an arbitration award, can only be set aside in very limited circumstances. The case highlighted the fundamental problem with the concept of FFP where an owner has the resources to finance any losses the club makes and can use those resources indirectly to present accounts that pass the requirements of the rules. There is no way of telling whether an agreement by a company X to sponsor a club for £Y is part of a wider agreement between X and the owner whereby the owner agrees to pay £Z to X for goods and services on condition that X sponsors the club unless it is either disclosed, or if kept confidential, leaked. A salary and spending cap would still be vulnerable to the same sort of manipulation but at least the national tax authorities would be able to look into allegations of under-declared payments and transactions involving related parties. I cannot see UEFA agreeing to either though as it would truly level the field and would not just prevent the new super wealthy clubs distorting the competition but would also threaten the dominant position enjoyed by clubs such as us, United, Real and Barcelona who have built their commercial and on-field power over the decades through more traditional football sources.